I really appreciate your constructive attitude here :) I write below some recommendations and my take on why this wasnāt successful. Some of it is a bit harsh, but thatās because I honestly respect you and think youāll take it well š
I remember coming across your post, which is in an area that Iām very interested in, but seeing that I didnāt remember any details and didnāt upvote, I probably just skimmed it and didnāt find it worth my time to read. Iāve read it now, and I have some thoughts about how you could have written a post on this topic which I would find interesting and more readableāafter reading it now, I think that it has some useful content that Iād like to know.
A lot of the post (and actually even most of this shortform post) is about your own views and thinking process and meta-thoughts about the post itself and itās context. This is a lot of overhead which is not needed and in fact damaging both because it is distracting and because it makes it harder to find the gold within.
As you said, the post is too lengthy and inefficient. Iād guess that most readers of the forum go through posts by filtering in approximately this order: Title-> skimming first paragraphs /ā look for clear bullet points or tl;dr-> skimming the post, mostly looking at headers, images, first words of paragraphs, bolded parts, bullet points ā skimming sections of interest ā dive deeper into all or what interests them.
I found myself confused from skimming the intro. I saw that you offer an alternative to ITN, but didnāt understand what it is.
Skimming the rest of the post, I saw the four bulleted concepts and my next thought was that I get the general idea of the post, even if Iām confused about somethings, but itās not worth my time to read through this text to understand it better.
It feels that the post is aiming at persuasion rather than description. I got the feeling that I was being sold some new shiny framework, and that most of the effort in the post goes there instead of just explaining what itās all about. I really do think that you overpromise here, and by doing that I could easily discard the whole idea as not worthwhile even if it has some merit.
Relatedly, I found the attitude in the post somewhat vain and dismissive towards existing ideas and the readers. As I write this, I look back and didnāt find any clear examples of that so perhaps Iām misjudging the post here. Perhaps itās because you make it seem like itās your idea.
Key ideas of the framework are not explained properly. I donāt understand how exactly one uses this framework. Can you put a ānumberā or evaluation on inherency? How exactly do accounts of diminishing returns enter this framework? What do we do about some overlap between different parts? You write that you hope for people to comment and ask questions, but I think that this is too much to askāit takes a while to clarify to myself what I donāt understand, and itās a lot of overhead anyway.
What Iād really hope you will do is to write a short post (not a shortform) which only explains this framework and some of its features, without unneeded meta-discussion. Iāve tried skimming the Wikipedia page, but itās in a different enough context and language that itās difficult for me to understand without a lot of effort.
Thanks for the insight/āfeedback! I definitely see what you are saying on a lot of points. Iāll be working on an improved post soon that incorporates your feedback.
I really appreciate your constructive attitude here :) I write below some recommendations and my take on why this wasnāt successful. Some of it is a bit harsh, but thatās because I honestly respect you and think youāll take it well š
I remember coming across your post, which is in an area that Iām very interested in, but seeing that I didnāt remember any details and didnāt upvote, I probably just skimmed it and didnāt find it worth my time to read. Iāve read it now, and I have some thoughts about how you could have written a post on this topic which I would find interesting and more readableāafter reading it now, I think that it has some useful content that Iād like to know.
A lot of the post (and actually even most of this shortform post) is about your own views and thinking process and meta-thoughts about the post itself and itās context. This is a lot of overhead which is not needed and in fact damaging both because it is distracting and because it makes it harder to find the gold within.
As you said, the post is too lengthy and inefficient. Iād guess that most readers of the forum go through posts by filtering in approximately this order: Title-> skimming first paragraphs /ā look for clear bullet points or tl;dr-> skimming the post, mostly looking at headers, images, first words of paragraphs, bolded parts, bullet points ā skimming sections of interest ā dive deeper into all or what interests them.
I found myself confused from skimming the intro. I saw that you offer an alternative to ITN, but didnāt understand what it is.
Skimming the rest of the post, I saw the four bulleted concepts and my next thought was that I get the general idea of the post, even if Iām confused about somethings, but itās not worth my time to read through this text to understand it better.
It feels that the post is aiming at persuasion rather than description. I got the feeling that I was being sold some new shiny framework, and that most of the effort in the post goes there instead of just explaining what itās all about. I really do think that you overpromise here, and by doing that I could easily discard the whole idea as not worthwhile even if it has some merit.
Relatedly, I found the attitude in the post somewhat vain and dismissive towards existing ideas and the readers. As I write this, I look back and didnāt find any clear examples of that so perhaps Iām misjudging the post here. Perhaps itās because you make it seem like itās your idea.
Key ideas of the framework are not explained properly. I donāt understand how exactly one uses this framework. Can you put a ānumberā or evaluation on inherency? How exactly do accounts of diminishing returns enter this framework? What do we do about some overlap between different parts? You write that you hope for people to comment and ask questions, but I think that this is too much to askāit takes a while to clarify to myself what I donāt understand, and itās a lot of overhead anyway.
What Iād really hope you will do is to write a short post (not a shortform) which only explains this framework and some of its features, without unneeded meta-discussion. Iāve tried skimming the Wikipedia page, but itās in a different enough context and language that itās difficult for me to understand without a lot of effort.
Thanks for the insight/āfeedback! I definitely see what you are saying on a lot of points. Iāll be working on an improved post soon that incorporates your feedback.